at&t is investing in america's future - working to create an internet that's smart, mobile and safe. last year at&t invested more than any other company in the u.s. and we're continuing to invest this year, to expand and enhance our wireless and wired networks. we support a national plan that ensures high speed internet access and enables adoption by all americans, over the next five years. adoption by all americans, over the next five years. the future is our business. at&t. your world delivered.

you wanted more. u waed videos and phos... ail and brdband. you wanted to ruyour buss from anywhere... and stanmessa#g stay in h everyone. you wanted apps to find music, news, or the way hom ok yo wireless mpanies... grow your world. ok we've come together from start up firms, to global communications companies, to organizations representing millions of users. we don't always agree, but we've come together to share an important goal: bringing the magic of high speed internet to everyone. private investment and competition drive the innovation and technology of the internet and companies keep inventing and investing to bring you a faster, smarter and safer internet for tomorrow. we're broadband for america, your partners

in this amazing journey. coming up next on this week in defense news, political reaction to president obama's new missile defense plan and a look at u.s. options in afghanistan. good morning and welcome to this week in defense news. the u.s. commander in afghanistan wants more troops, but the white house says no decisions until it finishes reviewing its war strategy. one expert tells us what's next. but first, in 2006 the bush administration unveiled plans to base interceptors in poland and radars in the czech republic to counter the threat of iranian ballistic missiles. that enraged moscow, which threatened to target the sites

with strike missiles. last week president obama revamped the plan, scrapping the basing of the poland in favor of a broader network of ground and sea-based missiles and radars. today we'll hear from two sides of the missile defense debate. we begin with congressman michael turner, an ohio republican who's the ranking member of the house armed services extra edge teamingic forces committee. i sat down and asked him how it jeopardizes the united states, what's the threat and why isn't a system deployed more quickly better. >> because it's not faster. i really do wish it was. this is not -- luckily it's not really up to debate, it's what the time frames are because the white house put up on their own website what the time frame is. on their own website they say that it's their plan, which includes portions of components that are not even in existence today, won't be available to provide protection to the united states until 2020. i've got the portion it says 2011 they're going to go for

short and you go down to 2015, 2018 and the first time that they say their system is available for protection coverage is 2020. the plan that they just scrapped would have been available 2013. >> 2017 though is what most devise in the pentagon were telling us before then in part because the pols had not approved or the czechs to allow those sites. >> it really is unfortunate that they say that because the reason why the pols and czechs did not approve it because because of the signals they were getting from the white house and the democrats that they were not going to get funding. the initial approval that they received from the czechs and the pols was the most important because the first step is saying we're going to do this, against a public that was not in favor of it. so the czechs and the pols really stepped out on a limb. the white house in giving them signals let them know they were going to cut funding, they were probably not going to go forward with this system and so as any political system is,

they didn't take the final step going forward, waiting for the white house to make its ultimate decision. the czech and pols were not the impedant. it was this white house and democrat support for funding the system. this is a system that could have and should have been in place by 2013. if the president had said last week instead of no we're stopping, if he had yes, we're going forward, it could have been 2013, 2014. it did not have to be 2017. but even so, let's say that everybody at the pentagon by having stretched it out to 2017 says that that's the earliest this system would have been available, which i don't believe is accurate. the system that they're proposing without question by their own website information is not available until 2020. there is a gap that puts america at risk. >> but the navy ships actually are available now and it's one of the missions that 18 navy ships have been mortified to do. they carry the standard missile 3 which is a more mature

technology. isn't toward-basing these ships in the north sea and the mediterranean not a better way of giving you that regional coverage. by the way, as i recall what general cartwright said in the press conference, the investment will still continue in the ground-based interceptor to see whether or not in five years time if the threat is there we can notice this forward to anywhere else with mobile radar. >> what's interesting about this, this is a system of systems. these are components. and you try to get greater and better coverage by how you take them apart and put them back together again. the component that was cut is the one that would have had the greatest amount of coverage for the united states and the soonest coverage. and that's really what i think people are more interested in. they're certainly interested in protecting our allies and our military assets in europe, but when it comes right down to it, people want to know when is the united states the safest, and that system would have been available sooner and would have provided the greatest coverage. now, you don't have to take my

word for it. our committee had asked for an independent assessment of this whole thing. the super defense analysis, this is the declassified portion of the report, gave an independent assessment of the proposed deployment of ballistic missile defense systems in europe. i have asked from the secretary of defense to release the full classified version of this text and it compares what you just asked me and it concluded that the system that was just scrapped was the one that was most cost effective and provided the best courage to the united states. it compared all of the systems that they're now proposing, because this was done with an anticipation that maybe, maybe the other system would work better. i don't know if you've read this but this says the system that was scrapped -- >> they generally don't like to give classified reports -- >> this is declassified. >> the chart in back is pretty easy to understand. >> but from a missile defense standpoint, the question was about whether 10 missiles gives you that efficacy because one of the challenges has always

been under battle doctrine -- whether it's the u.s. battle doctrine or the israeli, it's shoot, shoot, look, shoot. so 10 missiles gave you intercept for three. >> that's not necessarily accurate. they were not in isolation. it's wasn't the plan was to put 10 interceptors there and stop. all of that would have been available as part of a smorgasboard of options. so you would have had the ship capability, you would have had the european capability and you would have had alaska. by eliminating the european option -- but they cut that by a third in the budget. $1.2billion out of the budget and reduced alaska's capability by a third. so for this administration to say oh, we have alaska, they just cut it by a third. so if you get rid of europe, if you diminish alaska and say we're just going to do ships, you could have done some of that already. you really have made it more difficult to protect the united states. here's the bottom line,

regardless of what system that you like versus what other system someone else likes, the administration by their own website says that there would not be available by 2020 if the pentagon stretches it out and says that the other system would have been 2017, it's still sooner. i believe it was available 2013, 2014. all the intelligence seems to that i ran could have capability by 2015. >> what's the compromise proposal? where does this system have to go as far as you're concerned? what's the next step? >> well, i think the administration needs to reverse its decision because it hasn't even come forward with what are all of the systems that it's intending to piece together for this new plan. and some of them that they have cited don't even exist today. the plan that they have put forward includes components that don't even exist. and for them to have previously said we are only going to do proven technology, well, the proven technology was ready to go in europe. >> what of the parts don't

exist? the x band radar does, the two versions of the standard missile and the xm-3s exists now. >> they have by 2020 that their plan is to have icbm protection with an sm-3 block 2 b which does that exist and which is not something that has presentations to congress. as to what this is or how it will be made. it certainly hasn't been tested but it's not been made. >> let me take you to the question of broader strategic which is you're the ranking member of that. let's take a look at the nuclear reduction issue. the united states, russia, tentatively agreed in order to do a drawdown both on the launch vehicles and on the bomber side as well as on the war head side, what's your view of that given that the nuclear posture hasn't been concluded yet. >> i'm very concerned. one, they're obviously getting this backwards. by going to russia and giving a range in which they would negotiate without having done the posture review. but what's even of greater concern is that this administration appears to have made this concession on missile

defense at russia's request prior to entering into start negotiations. so the administration is conceding to the russians before we even begin negotiations and historically there's no point of reference that ever shows that conceding to the russians early results in greater concessions from the russians. they usually say thank you and what more can i have. >> critics say that the russians are trading away that which they would have gotten rid of anything so you're not really getting anything. >> and the administration proposes that what they're going to get from the russians is an interest in helping to deter iran, when russia has shown no indication of an interest in doing so, and iran has shown no indication that they would be dissuaded. >> should the strategic nuclear try add be something that's maintained or do we need to change that? do we need land and sea-based missiles as well as land-based bomber? >> absolutely. the whole concept is that it just that we have nuclear weapons to use, it's that we'd have them able to use if we

sustain an attack. that we have survivable assets. when you go to a lower number, you not only have the issue of survivability but the issue of operability. we have the need for modernization, we have the need for ensuring that these systems will continue to be able to be you gettized and then you have the threat as to what happens if there should be something that do destabilize them. >> sir, thanks for joining us. coming up another side of the missile defense debate. because of one word, imagination and reality have merged.

because of one word, a new generation-- a fifth generation-- of fighter aircraft has been born. because of one word, america's air dominance for the next forty years is assured. that one word... is how. i'm now joined by heather connelly, director and senior fellow of the europe program at the center for strategic and international studies from 2001 to 2005 heather served as deputy assistant secretary of state for the bureau of

european. heather, welcome to the show. >> thank you. >> let's start with the verdict. what's the verdict on the administration's missile defense plan. is it politically and technically feasible? >> i'll begin by saying there was no surprise here. the obama administration was always going to change its path on missile defense. i think the timing of the announcement was a huge shock. i think how the administration rolled out this announcement was so flawed that it almost overshadows the actual decision. there is so much information, more information we need to know about, so i'm going to sort of divide this in a couple of baskets, if you will. the first is the actual decision. there must have been a sweeping change in the threat assessment, and i think we need to explore that a little bit more. what information do we have to really change our prediction and our determination of the greatest threat coming from iran. that's number 1. number 2, certainly the administration believes that this hybrid sea- based, land-based short and

medium range system is more cost effective and more effectively implemented. that's great. let's dive a little deeper into it. i don't think we know quite yet. we want to understand the cost implications. we want to understand how this system will work. but again the speed of the announcement, the breath-taking scope of it we're all sort of questioning. this may be a good course but we need to understand more. >> russia always hated the plan and had threatened to target the sites. the decision or the change in plan came on the eve of the u.n. mission -- the big u.n. series of meetings this week in which russia said that it's actually willing to put more pressure on iran on its nuclear weapons programs. is there a connection here in the two decisions do you think? >> well, this gets back to the timing of this decision. the administration went out of its way to tell us they have within reviewing this policy for seven months. they have had countless meetings and conversations and dialogues with allies and certainly. >> and they have been telegraphing that they're going to change the policy. >> absolutely. under the no surprise theory.

poland and the czech republic knew a new decision was coming. but why now? why to time this decision on the 70th anniversary of the soviet invasion of eastern poland, why would you time this six days before a bilateral meeting between the president and the russian president. the administration said no connection, no connection, but the timing looks so suspicious. >> are the russians going to be satisfied by this ultimately? missiles i'm told will eventually go into poland at some point is the intention. >> well, in the short term the russians will say exactly, you finally came around to our thinking, we told you this was the wrong way to go. so certainly in the short term this does bring relief to the u.s.-russian bilateral relationship. bii've always been very curious, because part of the u.s. agreement with poland which has been reaffirmed after the new announcement on missile defense was that they're

evading some robust and modernization to poland's air defense system by way of patriots and other things. that to me would seem to disturb the russians. missile defense as it develops, which it was never against russia, it was against iran. >> and to protect the united states and not to protect poland or europe. >> absolutely. >> were relations with the pols and the czechs irreparable damaged by this shift? >> they were significantly damaged and it was damaged to the political leadership. public opinion in both poland and the czech republic were never enthusiastic about missile defense and that's what makes the risk-taking by the leadership of both countries that much more robust. they were going against public will, doing something that they thought was important. how they interpreted the decision, poland's perception, particularly after the georgian- russian convict is that russia

is an emerging threat so much of this was to maintain a strong u.s.-polish bilateral defense relationship and that's what this turned into being at the end. it has done damage. the polish foreign minister recently said a message to all of you pols who support the u.s. and believe that the u.s. is the essential partner, trust me, the united states only sees poland as a regional ally. that's a shame, because poland should be a strategic partner to the united states. >> heather, thanks very, very much. i wish we had more time for this, unfortunately we don't. we'd love to have you back. what are the afghanistan options being considered by the obama administration? stay tuned, that's next. m

president obama game into office saying the war in afghanistan was the top priority. in the meantime the president pressured allies to do more in the war-torn country, fired the top commander and asked the new boss to come up with more options. mcchrystal submit his findings in august and wants more troops to get the job done. warning that unless the allied forces gain control in a year the eight-year fight will be lost. the p says he won't be pushed into charting the course and senior members want him to withdraw, a move that's worrying washington's allies. here to talk to us about the options are is tom donnelly. welcome back.

so talk to us a little bit. what are the options under consideration and what are the implications of some of the options? >> well, there are two sets of options. there's the strategic set of options. to put that simply, it's a choice between a counter insurgency campaign and narrowly focused counterterrorism, keep al-qaeda out of afghanistan campaign. >> so there is no withdrawal and get out of there right away strategy. >> no, i believe so. then there's the question of how much of a troop commitment and resources more broadly to pursue this strategy and there will be options. the sort of typical bureaucratic, the menu that so often advanced but i think bottom line is general mcchrystal would like to have another 40,000 troops. >> where would those 40,000 troops come from? >> well, essentially they're

going to be transferred, as it were, from the iraq theater or the iraq conveyor belt, if you will, to the afghanistan theater. so the stress on the force will be as tight and as great as ever, if not more so. >> and that's something obviously that the marines are very interested in playing a larger role in. what are the stakes to one of these policy changes? the administration has made it a big point to say it's a war of necessity and now all of a sudden you see the president saying that we were committed but we're not committed and he seems very vacillating. what kind of a signal does that send u.s. allies? >> not a good signal. our allies are already unhappy and they have been beat up pretty bad by their experience in afghanistan. the canadians just confirmed saying we're out in 2011. the italians just buried six soldiers who were killed in a bomb attack in kabul and even

the prime minister has said we're going to have to get out. >> gordon brown is under enormous pressure as well. that's part of the strategy, make sure you're killing the guys of the countries that are sitting on the fence. >> quite sensibly so. and of course they will attack soft targets. they'll get who they can get. but they know that public opinion in europe is even more tenuous than it is here. >> do we have any idea when the white house is going to decide this? general mcchrystal is going to put in a request for more troops. and public support has been flagging where does public support stand now compared to when we did the search. >> i think it's probably higher than it was. public opinion about the prospects of victory and the wisdom of reinforcing the situation in 2007 in iraq was very -- all of the washington establishment was against it.

so in many ways obama is in a more favorable domestic political position than president bush was. however, the big difference is president bush was bound and determined that victory in iraq -- or that victory and surge was going to be his legacy. president obama needs to exert a similar feeling of determination if he's going to carry today. >> and use those skills to marshal public support. coming up, a test of leadership for president obama.

you wanted more. u waed videos and phos... ail and brdband. you wanted to ruyour buss from anywhere... and stanmessa#g stay in h everyone. you wanted apps to find music, news, or the way hom ok yo wireless mpanies... grow your world.

when is comes to leadership, how you deliver a message can matter as much as the message itself. but this obama team so formidable at messaging is looking flat footed now. president obama appears to have made the right call to scrap plans of 10 interceptors in

poland in favor of a different system relying on navy ships and mobile missiles and radars. the rollout was amateurish, fueling confusion. on afghanistan the president is transmitting worrying messages. he's right to consider the next steps in a country where american and allied forces have fought for eight years. his rhett sense is help worrying the allies he pressured into doing more. the situation in afghanistan today is not unlike iraq in 2005. before the surge. then as now americans were increasingly saying it was time to get out but the surge was effective and the tide was turned. just a few months ago the president made clear afghanistan was a war of necessity. general stanley mcchrystal has laid out options for the president in afghanistan. it's now up to the president to decide a course and sell it to an increasingly skeptical public. this is a major test of his leadership and one he can't afford to fail. leadership needs momentum and once you lose it, it's hard to regain it. thanks for joining us this week. you can watch this online or e-

mail me bago@defensenewstv.com. i'll be back next sunday morning at 11:00. have a great week.